📋
Extraído del Informe Consolidado

Esta investigación fue publicada originalmente como parte de un informe consolidado más amplio que contiene múltiples investigaciones. Consulte el PDF consolidado para ver el documento completo.

Santa Cruz County Grand Jury • 2000-2001

Special Districts

Published: June 08, 2001 2 pages
View PDF View Full Original

Findings 27 findings

F1
The California Planning and Zoning Law (Government Code §65300 et seq.) requires adoption of a comprehensive long-term General Plan that determines the development of the county.
F2
The Board of Supervisors determines the annual allocation of the maximum number of building permits to be issued in accordance with Measure J’s growth management program. The 2001 building permits allocations are set at 0.5% over the number of housing units on December 31, 2000.
F3
Land use codes and ordinances are broadly constructed and, therefore, susceptible to multiple interpretations. Review of the Santa Cruz County Planning Department 2000-01 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report Personnel Findings
F4
The planning staff ’s responsibility is to explain to applicants the limitations imposed on the applicant’s use of their own property by (1) state laws, (2) county codes and (3) county ordinances. Often these rules conflict with the property owner’s desires.
F5
Political influence by the Board of Supervisors places added pressure on the planning staff. Supervisors act for the best interest of their constituency. When membership on the board changes, direction from the supervisors changes.
F6
City governments in the county and many neighboring counties pay higher salaries than Santa Cruz County does. Salaries in Santa Cruz County government are based on a nine- county comparison using Contra Costa, Fresno, Marin, Monterey, Napa, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Solano, and Sonoma.
F7
Employee morale is low and turnover is at an unprecedented high. This resulted from failure in negotiations to successively challenge the nine-county comparison. At the peak, there were 24 vacancies in the department. This necessitated taking staff from the advanced planning section to cover shortfalls in other sections.
F8
The personnel department has been unable to attract the necessary people with requisite qualifications to fill vacancies in the Planning Department staff. Some vacant positions are difficult to fill because they are classified as temporary positions. The Planning Department requested hiring an outside consultant to assume the recruitment effort.
F9
According to interviews with employees, workloads continue to be excessive. Also, employee performance evaluations have not been conducted on a consistent basis.
F10
The department has budgeted 125 computer classes, approximately one day’s training for each employee of the Planning Department. The managers of each section are responsible for budgeting additional training courses for staff as needed to enhance their skills.
F11
The Planning Director has implemented a program to acquaint new hires with the operations of the department as well as familiarize current employees with functions of other areas within the department. Additional training for new hires is left to other employees in the area where the person works. The responsibility for ensuring that employees obtain continuing or additional training lies with each manager.
F12
In the fall of 2000, the Planning Director has obtained approval from the Board of Supervisors for a new staff position devoted to training. This staff position will evaluate the training needs of the department and devise strategies and methods to satisfy those needs. Review of the Santa Cruz County Planning Department 2000-01 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report
F13
The Planning Director proposed that employees be assigned to planning teams to be responsible for virtually all the development activity in a particular geographical area. Each team leader will be responsible for acquiring a thorough understanding of the assigned geographic location. Development Review Section Findings
F14
On January 11, 2001, the City of Capitola and its finance director negotiated the Amended Supplemental Employment Agreement. This amendment superceded the March 23, 2000 amendment in its entirety. This action reinstated the direct supervisory relationship between the city manager and finance director. Item 2 states the current finance director will retire June 30, 2001. Item 6 states: “…The parties expect that the directive of the City Manager will be consistent with the position’s ‘Essential Duties and Responsibilities.’ If the Finance Director believes that a directive of the City Manager cannot be reconciled with the above-quoted duty, he may pursue that as a grievance under the grievance procedures in the Management Employees Compensation Plan.” Investigation of the Reporting Structure between the Capitol City Council and City Manager 2000-01 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report • Included as an exhibit to the January 11, 2000 agreement, the City of Capitola and the current finance director entered into a Contract for Professional Services commencing September 1, 2001 terminating on June 30, 2003. In this contract, the contractor would give advice, recommendations and drafts on several policies and procedures and perform other non-routine tasks. Under the agreement, the contractor is expressly prohibited from performing day-to-day routine tasks. Item 3, under the Duties heading states: “Contractor shall not be requested to, nor shall Contractor, perform any day-to-day, ongoing, routine accounting or fiscal duties, and Contractor shall not supervise, or be supervised by, any official, employee, or agent of the City.” • In response to a question, the finance director stated in the interview the list of contemplated projects attached to the Contract for Professional Services included some tasks that he characterized as ordinarily the responsibility of a finance director.
F15
Despite the impending retirement of the finance director, at the close of fieldwork the City of Capitola had not begun its search for a new finance director. Under the Professional Services Agreement signed by the current finance director, the contractor is prohibited from assisting the city in its day-to-day operations after his retirement. This raises the question: Who will act as finance director after June 30, 2001? The Grand Jury was unable to determine the plans of the city regarding this matter.
F16
In preparing this report, the Grand Jury found it necessary to interview the finance director alone. For six weeks, the Grand Jury attempted to arrange for such a routine interview. This was refused and he was therefore subpoenaed to appear before the Grand Jury. In preparing this report, the Grand Jury found it necessary to conduct a private interview with the finance director. For six weeks, the Grand Jury attempted to arrange for an interview, however, the finance director refused to appear alone. Based on review of the correspondence received from the City of Capitola on this matter, the finance director’s refusal to voluntarily cooperate was supported by the city attorney, mayor and new city manager. A subpoena was subsequently issued and the finance director did appear alone. Penal Code §939 has been interpreted by the courts as operating to prohibit the presence of anyone at a grand jury session other than grand jurors and witnesses actually under examination. The only exceptions are a bailiff, court reporter, or interpreter. Conclusions The city council spent an inordinate amount of time in 2000 discussing and restructuring the reporting relationship of the city manager and finance director that was ultimately returned to its previous state in conformity with Municipal Code. The city council allowed itself to be diverted from crucial city business by the antagonism between these two important city officials, which, in part, led to the resignation of a council member. Instead of using standard government practices to resolve a formal personnel grievance, the city council entered into a contract with one of the parties that contravened its own Municipal Code. A change in the reporting relationship between the city manager and finance director as a quid pro quo agreement for the withdrawal of the grievances presents serious public policy questions. Investigation of the Reporting Structure between the Capitol City Council and City Manager 2000-01 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report
F17
Members of the 2000-01Grand Jury attended board meetings where derogatory remarks were made by one director regarding the general manager’s job performance.
F18
The BCR&PD operated at a loss for fiscal year 2000-01. This shortfall was covered by district reserves.
F19
Of 6,136 voters registered within Boulder Creek Recreation and Park District, 4,633 voted on November 7, 2000 in the BCR&PD board of director’s election. This represents greater than 75% voter turnout. Review of Boulder Creek Recreation and Park District 2000-01 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report Conclusions Some incumbent directors demonstrate ill will towards each other that impedes their ability to cooperate. This has had a negative impact on the ability of the district to move ahead with a number of proposed projects, including such simple projects as painting a four square court or hopscotch on asphalt. The lack of a current, comprehensive Policies and Procedures Manual, to which the directors and the general manager adhere, has fostered an atmosphere of extreme animosity at the board meetings. This contributes to endless discussions at board meetings. Updating and editing policies and procedures at meetings of the board of directors is poor utilization of meeting time and is an impediment to handling the business of the district. This approach to updating the policies and procedures has created agendas with an unwieldy amount of unfinished business, most of which is related to changes in policies or procedures. Compilation of updated policies and procedures has been haphazard and there is no way to know what changes have been made. The general manager’s ability to perform is impeded by the lack of an approved job description and the absence of annual performance evaluations. This has intensified the ill will between directors who feel the job is being performed adequately and those who feel it is not. The letter of intent to resign by an incumbent director was made public immediately after election results were posted in November 2000. The Grand Jury questions the timing of this action. This letter states that the general manager withheld knowledge of the incumbent’s intent to resign from the other directors. When this letter was made public, the fact that the general manager had known of the intent to resign was revealed, which gave the appearance of impropriety on the part of both the incumbent director and the general manager. This further undermined the relationship between the general manager and the other directors. Limitation of the public at the podium on any one agenda item has improved the ability of the board to move ahead in meetings.
F20
After the formation of the SSC, the chairperson’s communications with parents showed a wider variety of communication techniques. Communication Method Frequency School Newsletter 16 Meetings 4 School Bulletin 6
F21
According to the School Site Council Handbook, “After the SSC is first formed or new members are selected to ongoing councils, the school/district should provide training and ongoing in-service to the members to assist them in carrying out their responsibilities. The training provided to the SSC should be on a regular basis, and the training should be appropriate to the tasks at hand.” Training is not being provided to all site councils in Santa Cruz County.
F22
In the committee’s interview with the County Superintendent of Schools, it was stated “We are now looking at doing training for participants.” Review of the Organization and Structure of Site Councils in Santa Cruz County Public Schools 2000-01 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report
F23
Upon request, training support is available through the County Office of Education.
F24
Survey responses revealed that in many cases parity between school personnel and parent/student representatives was not achieved. Parity was reported by18 of 31 principals and 5 of 16 chairpersons.
F25
Respondents stated that Hispanics and other minorities in many communities are under represented on school site councils.
F26
Some of the methods used to count votes have the appearance of impropriety. While appearance does not constitute wrongdoing, it can still undermine the integrity of the voting process. Conclusions Communication to parents and the local community regarding the school site council, and nominations in particular, needs to be improved. Even though it is not required by education code, nominations to fill seats on site councils should be conducted in accordance with democratic principles. Security of the voting process is non-existent in some schools. • A secured ballot box is not utilized at each school. • Some parents are eliminated from the voting process by missing an election meeting. • Votes returned by students may get lost in transit or misplaced. • Voting process should be established in accordance with democratic procedures. Training should be provided annually to the school site councils. School site councils are not adequately publicized. Too much dependence is placed on the school newsletter for communication. Most schools indicated that they had difficulty obtaining new SSC members. Participation greatly contributes to the success of a school site council; therefore, in order to stimulate interest, more creative efforts should be used. While the Education Code provides for specific oversight of school plans, it is ambiguous regarding the structure and organization of school site councils.
F27
Since the establishment of the CPRB, the Internal Affairs investigation reports have increased from a typical 5-page report to a possible 25-page report. These reports must now be written in laymen’s terms for the CPRB members, rather than police terminology. Conclusions The number of complaints made to the Santa Cruz City Police Department is extremely low. The existing training provided to CPRB members does not involve adequate training in the Police Department’s practices and procedures. An established procedure is in place at the Santa Cruz Police Department to investigate citizen complaints and an additional level of review increases the complaint resolution time. The chief of police is not bound by the recommendations of the CPRB but agrees with their findings in most cases. A review board has the potential to provide a new perspective and serve as a checks and balances on the police department’s complaint review process. Page84 Review of the Citizens’ Police Review Board of the City of Santa Cruz 2000-01 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report

Recommendations 17

Conclusions 49

No Responses Found 1

Government entities assigned to respond to this report. No response documents have been linked in our database.

Santa Cruz County County